Science as a social institution issues. Science as a social institution

Science how social institution

Science is a complex, multifaceted socio-historical phenomenon. Representing a specific system (and not a simple sum) of knowledge, it is at the same time a unique form of spiritual production and a specific social institution that has its own organizational forms.

Science as a social institution is a special, relatively independent form of social consciousness and sphere of human activity, acting as a historical product of the long development of human civilization, spiritual culture, which has developed its own types of communication, human interaction, forms of division of research labor and norms of consciousness of scientists.

The concept of science as a social institution

Science is not only a form of social consciousness aimed at an objective reflection of the world and providing humanity with an understanding of patterns, but also a social institution. In Western Europe, science as a social institution arose in the 17th century in connection with the need to serve the emerging capitalist production and began to claim a certain autonomy. In the system of social division of labor, science as a social institution has assigned itself specific functions: to bear responsibility for the production, examination and implementation of scientific- theoretical knowledge. As a social institution, science included not only a system of knowledge and scientific activity, but also a system of relations in science, scientific institutions and organizations.

The institution presupposes a set of norms, principles, rules, and models of behavior that regulate human activity and are woven into the functioning of society; This is a phenomenon at the supra-individual level, its norms and values dominate the individuals operating within its framework. The very concept of “social institution” began to come into use thanks to the research of Western sociologists. R. Merton is considered the founder of the institutional approach in science. In the domestic philosophy of science, the institutional approach for a long time was not developed. Institutionalism presupposes the formalization of all types of relations, the transition from unorganized activities and informal relations such as agreements and negotiations to the creation of organized structures involving hierarchy, power regulation and regulations. The concept of “social institution” reflects the degree of consolidation of one or another type of human activity - there are political, social, religious institutions, as well as institutions of family, school, marriage, etc.

The process of institutionalization of science testifies to its independence, the official recognition of the role of science in the system of social division of labor, and the claim of science to participate in the distribution of material and human resources. Science as a social institution has its own ramified structure and uses both cognitive, organizational and moral resources. Development of institutional forms scientific activity involved clarifying the prerequisites for the process of institutionalization, revealing its content, and analyzing the results of institutionalization. As a social institution, science includes the following components:

The body of knowledge and its carriers;

The presence of specific cognitive goals and objectives;

Perform certain functions;

Availability of specific means of knowledge and institutions;

Development of forms of control, examination and evaluation of scientific achievements;

The existence of certain sanctions.

E. Durkheim especially emphasized the coercive nature of the institutional in relation to an individual subject, its external force, T. Parsons pointed to another important feature institution - a stable set of roles distributed within it. Institutions are called upon to rationally streamline the life activities of the individuals who make up society and ensure the sustainable flow of communication processes between various social structures. M. Weber emphasized that an institution is a form of association of individuals, a way of inclusion in collective activity, participation in social action.

The modern institutional approach is characterized by taking into account the applied aspects of science. The normative moment loses its dominant place, and the image of “pure science” gives way to the image of “science put at the service of production.” The competence of institutionalization includes the problems of the emergence of new areas of scientific research and scientific specialties, the formation of corresponding scientific communities, the identification various degrees institutionalization. There is a desire to distinguish between cognitive and professional institutionalization. Science as a social institution depends on social institutions that provide the necessary material and social conditions for its development. Merton's research uncovered addiction modern science from the needs of technology development, socio-political structures and internal values of the scientific community. It was shown that modern scientific practice is carried out only within the framework of science, understood as a social institution. In this regard, restrictions are possible research activities and freedom of scientific research. Institutionality provides support for those activities and those projects that contribute to the strengthening of a particular value system. The set of basic values varies, but at present no scientific institution will preserve and embody in its structure the principles of dialectical materialism or biblical revelation, as well as the connection of science with parascientific types of knowledge.

The evolution of methods for transmitting scientific knowledge

Human society, throughout its development, needed ways to transfer experience and knowledge from generation to generation. The synchronous method (communication) indicates prompt targeted communication, the possibility of coordinating the activities of individuals in the process of their coexistence and interaction. The diachronic method (translation) is the time-extended transmission of available information, the “sum of knowledge and circumstances” from generation to generation. The difference between communication and broadcast is very significant: the main mode of communication is negative feedback, i.e. correction of programs known to both parties of communication; the main mode of transmission is positive feedback, i.e. transmission of programs known to one side of communication and unknown to the other. Knowledge in the traditional sense is associated with transmission. Both types of communication use language as the main, always accompanying sociality, sign reality.

Language as a sign reality or a system of signs serves as a specific means of storing and transmitting information, as well as a means of controlling human behavior. The sign nature of language can be understood from the fact that biological coding is insufficient. Sociality, which manifests itself as the attitude of people about things and the attitude of people about people, is not assimilated by genes. People are forced to use non-biological means of reproducing their social nature in succession of generations. The sign is a kind of “hereditary essence” of extra-biological social coding, ensuring the transmission of everything that is necessary for society, but cannot be transmitted by biocode. Language acts as a “social” gene.

Language as a social phenomenon is not invented or invented by anyone; it sets and reflects the requirements of sociality. As a product of the creativity of an individual, language is nonsense that has no universality and is therefore perceived as gibberish. “Language is as ancient as consciousness,” “language is the immediate reality of thought,” these are the classical propositions. Differences in the conditions of human life are inevitably reflected in language. Thus, the peoples of the Far North have a specification for the names of snow and do not have one for the names of flowers, which do not have important meaning for them. Humanity accumulates knowledge and then passes it on to subsequent generations.

Before the advent of writing, knowledge was transmitted through oral speech. Verbal language is the language of words. Writing was defined as a secondary phenomenon, replacing oral speech. At the same time, the more ancient Egyptian civilization knew methods of non-verbal transmission of information.

Writing is an extremely significant way of transmitting knowledge, a form of recording the content expressed in language, which makes it possible to connect the past, present and future development of mankind, making it transtemporal. Writing is an important characteristic of the state and development of society. It is believed that the "savage" society, represented by the social type of the "hunter", invented the pictogram; “barbarian society” represented by “pa stukha” used an ideo-phonogram; the society of "farmers" created an alphabet. In early types of societies, the function of writing was assigned to special social categories of people - these were priests and scribes. The appearance of writing testified to the transition from barbarism to civilization.

Two types of writing - phonology and hieroglyphics - accompany cultures of different types. The other side of writing is reading, a special type of translational practice. The development of mass education, as well as the development of technical capabilities for reproducing books (the printing press invented by J. Guttenberg in the 15th century) played a revolutionary role.

There are different points of view on the relationship between writing and phonetic language. In antiquity, Plato interpreted writing as a service component, auxiliary equipment memorization. The famous dialogues of Socrates were transmitted by Plato, since Socrates developed his teachings orally.

Starting from Stoicism, notes M. Foucault, the system of signs was threefold, it distinguished between the signifier, the signified and the “case”. Since the 17th century, the disposition of signs has become binary, since it is determined by the connection between the signifier and the signified. Language, which exists in a free, original existence as writing, as a mark on things, as a sign of the world, gives rise to two other forms: above the original layer are comments that use existing signs, but in a new use, and below is a text, the primacy of which is assumed by the commentary. Since the 17th century, the problem of connecting a sign with what it means has arisen. The classical era tries to solve this problem by analyzing ideas, and the modern era tries to solve this problem by analyzing meaning and meaning. Thus, language turns out to be nothing more than a special case of representation (for people of the classical era) and meaning (for modern humanity).

Components of science as a social institution. The process of institutionalization.

Science and Economics. Science and power.

Evolution of methods for transmitting scientific knowledge.

Materials for the lecture

body of knowledge and its carriers;

the presence of specific cognitive goals and objectives;

performing certain functions;

the presence of specific means of knowledge and institutions;

development of forms of control, examination and evaluation of scientific achievements;

the existence of certain sanctions.

The modern institutional approach is characterized by taking into account the applied aspects of science. The normative moment loses its dominant place, and the image of “pure science” gives way to the image of “science put at the service of production.” Modern scientific practice is carried out only within the framework of science, understood as a social institution. Institutionality provides support for those activities and those projects that contribute to the strengthening of a particular value system. One of the unwritten rules of the scientific community is the prohibition of turning to authorities to use mechanisms of coercion and subordination in resolving scientific problems. The requirement of scientific competence becomes the leading one for the scientist. Arbitrators and experts when assessing the results of scientific research can only be professionals or groups of professionals. Science as a social institution takes on the functions of distributing rewards and ensures recognition of the results of scientific activity, thus transferring the personal achievements of the scientist into the collective property.

The sociology of science examines the relationship of the institution of science with the social structure of society, the typology of behavior of scientists in various social systems, the dynamics of group interactions of formal professional and informal communities of scientists, as well as specific sociocultural conditions for the development of science in various types of societies.

The institutionality of modern science dictates the ideal of rationality, which is entirely subordinate to sociocultural and institutional requirements and regulations. The institutionalization process includes the following components:

academic and university science responsible for the production of new knowledge;

concentration of resources necessary for scientific innovations and their implementation,

banking and financing system;

representative and legislative bodies that legitimize innovation, for example, academic councils and higher certification commissions in the process of awarding scientific degrees and titles;

Press Institute;

organizational and management institute;

a judicial institution designed to resolve or end intra-scientific conflicts.

Currently, the institutional approach is one of the dominant mechanisms for the development of science. However, it has disadvantages: exaggeration of the role of formal aspects, insufficient attention to the psychological and sociocultural foundations of human behavior, the rigidly prescriptive nature of scientific activity, and ignoring informal development opportunities.

Science as a social institution is designed to stimulate the growth of scientific knowledge and provide an objective assessment of the contribution of a particular scientist. As a social institution, science is responsible for the use or prohibition of scientific achievements. Members of the scientific community must conform to the norms and values accepted in science, therefore an important characteristic of the institutional understanding of science is the ethos of science. According to R. Merton, the following features of the scientific ethos should be highlighted:

universalism - the objective nature of scientific knowledge, the content of which does not depend on who and when it was received, only the reliability confirmed by accepted scientific procedures is important;

collectivism – the universal nature of scientific work, presupposing the publicity of scientific results, their public domain;

selflessness due to the general goal of science - the comprehension of truth; selflessness in science must prevail over any considerations of prestige, personal gain, mutual responsibility, competition, etc.;

organized skepticism – a critical attitude towards oneself and the work of one’s colleagues; in science nothing is taken for granted, and the moment of denying the results obtained is an irremovable element of scientific research.

Scientific activity cannot proceed in isolation from socio-political processes. The relationship between science and economics, science and government has always been a big problem. Science is not only an energy-intensive, but also a hugely financially expensive enterprise. It requires huge capital investments and is not always profitable.

The problem of preventing the negative consequences of using latest technologies. Economic and technological implementations that ignore humanistic goals and values give rise to numerous consequences that destroy human existence. The lag and delay in awareness of this range of problems is worrying. At the same time, it is a well-founded economic strategy in relation to technical sciences, technological and engineering activities that needs verified and precise guidelines that take into account the full scale and severity of the problem of interaction between the natural and artificial worlds, economics and high-tech technologies, expertise and humanitarian control.

Scientists come to the conclusion that if scientific activity for the production of fundamental knowledge and its application is suspended for at least 50 years, it will never be able to resume, since existing achievements will be subject to corrosion of the past. Another important conclusion concerns the range of problems associated with the relationship between economics and science, and emphasizes the need for investment control.

The modern technical world is complex. Its forecasting is one of the most critical areas associated with the effects of complex systems that cannot be fully controlled either by scientists or by government authorities. Is it right to place all responsibility for the application of scientific discoveries on the intellectual elite? Hardly. In modern forecasting, not just the “technical device - person” system should be considered, but a complex in which environmental parameters, socio-cultural guidelines, the dynamics of market relations and government priorities and, of course, universal human values are stated.

Discussing the relationship between science and power, scientists note that science itself has power functions and can function as a form of power, domination and control.

However, in actual practice, the government either supervises science or dictates its own government priorities to it. There are such concepts as national science, the prestige of the state, strong defense. The concept of “power” is closely related to the concept of the state and its ideology. From the point of view of the state and authorities, science should serve the cause of education, make discoveries and provide prospects for economic growth and development of the well-being of the people. Developed science is an indicator of the strength of the state. The presence of scientific achievements determines the economic and international status of the state; however, the strict dictatorship of the authorities is unacceptable.

The relationship between science and government can be traced through the involvement of leading scientists in the process of justifying important government and management decisions. In a number of European countries and the United States, scientists are involved in government, discussing problems of government and public policy.

At the same time, science has specific goals and objectives, scientists adhere to objective positions, it is not typical for the scientific community as a whole to turn to the arbitration authority of those in power when solving scientific problems, just as it is unacceptable for it to interfere with the authorities in the process of scientific research. In this case, the difference between fundamental and applied sciences should be taken into account, and if fundamental sciences as a whole are aimed at studying the universe, then applied sciences should solve the goals that the production process sets for it, and contribute to changing objects in the direction it needs. Their autonomy and independence is significantly reduced compared to basic sciences, which require huge capital investments and the return on which is possible only after several decades. This is an unprofitable industry associated with a high degree of risk. This raises the problem of determining the highest priority areas of government funding.

The evolution of methods for transmitting scientific knowledge

Human society, throughout its development, needed ways to transfer experience and knowledge from generation to generation. Language as a sign reality or a system of signs serves as a specific means of storing and transmitting information, as well as a means of controlling human behavior. The sign nature of language can be understood from the fact that biological coding is insufficient. Sociality, which manifests itself as the attitude of people about things and the attitude of people about people, is not assimilated by genes. People are forced to use extra-biological means of reproducing their social nature in succession of generations. The sign is a kind of “hereditary essence” of extra-biological social coding, providing the translation of everything that is necessary for society, but cannot be transmitted by biocode. Language acts as a “social” gene.

Writing is an extremely significant way of transmitting knowledge, a form of recording the content expressed in language, which makes it possible to connect the past, present and future development of mankind, making it transtemporal. Writing is an important characteristic of the state and development of society. It is believed that the "savage" society, represented by the social type of the "hunter", invented the pictogram; the “barbarian society” represented by the “shepherd” used an ideo-phonogram; the society of "farmers" created an alphabet. In early types of societies, the function of writing was assigned to special social categories of people - these were priests and scribes. The appearance of writing testified to the transition from barbarism to civilization.

There are different points of view on the relationship between writing and phonetic language. In antiquity, Plato interpreted writing as a service component, an auxiliary memorization technique. The famous dialogues of Socrates were transmitted by Plato, since Socrates developed his teachings orally.

Since the 17th century, the disposition of signs has become binary, since it is determined by the connection between the signifier and the signified. Language, which exists in a free, original existence as writing, as a mark on things, as a sign of the world, gives rise to two other forms: above the original layer are comments that use existing signs, but in a new use, and below is a text, the primacy of which is assumed by the commentary. Since the 17th century, the problem of connecting a sign with what it means has arisen. The classical era tries to solve this problem by analyzing ideas, and the modern era tries to solve this problem by analyzing meaning and meaning. Thus, language turns out to be nothing more than a special case of representation (for people of the classical era) and meaning (for modern humanity).

The science of writing was formed in the 18th century. Writing is recognized as a necessary condition for scientific objectivity; it is an arena for metaphysical, technical, and economic achievements. An important problem is the unambiguous connection between meaning and meaning. Therefore, positivists justified the need to create a single unified language using the language of physics.

Methods of formalization and methods of interpretation are important for transmitting knowledge. The former are called upon to control every possible language, to curb it through linguistic laws that determine what can be said and how; the second is to force the language to expand its semantic field, to come closer to what is said in English, but without taking into account the actual field of linguistics.

The translation of scientific knowledge places demands on the language for neutrality, lack of individuality and an accurate reflection of existence. The ideal of such a system is enshrined in the positivist dream of language as a copy of the world (such an installation became the main program requirement for the analysis of the language of science of the Vienna Circle). However, the truths of discourse are always captured by mentality. Language forms a repository of traditions, habits, superstitions, the “dark spirit” of the people, and absorbs ancestral memory.

The “language picture” is a reflection of the natural world and the artificial world. This is understandable when a particular language, due to certain historical reasons, becomes widespread in other areas of the globe and is enriched with new concepts and terms.

For example, the linguistic picture that has developed in the Spanish language in the homeland of its speakers, i.e. on the Iberian Peninsula, after the Spanish conquest of America, it began to undergo significant changes. Native speakers of Spanish found themselves in new natural and socio-economic conditions of South America, and the meanings previously recorded in the vocabulary began to be brought into line with them. As a result, significant differences have arisen between the lexical systems of the Spanish language in the Iberian Peninsula and in South America.

Verbalists - supporters of the existence of thinking only on the basis of language - associate thought with its sound complex. However, L. Vygodsky also noted that verbal thinking does not exhaust all forms of thought or all forms of speech. Most of the thinking will not be directly related to verbal thinking (instrumental and technical thinking and, in general, the entire area of the so-called practical intelligence). Researchers highlight non-verbal, visual thinking and show that thinking without words is just as possible as thinking with words. Verbal thinking is only one type of thinking.

The most ancient way of transmitting knowledge is fixed by the theory of the nominal origin of language, which showed that the successful outcome of any difficult situation in life, for example, hunting a wild animal, required a certain division of individuals into groups and assigning private operations to them using a name. In the psyche of primitive man, a strong reflex connection was established between the work situation and a certain sound-name. Where there was no name-address, joint activity was impossible; name-address was a means of distributing and fixing social roles. The name looked like a bearer of sociality, and the person identified in the name became a temporary performer of this social role.

The modern process of transmitting scientific knowledge and human mastery of cultural achievements falls into three types: personal-nominal, professional-nominal and universal-conceptual. According to personal-nominal rules, a person joins social activity through the eternal name - the discriminator.

For example, mother, father, son, daughter, clan elder, Pope - these names force the individual to strictly follow the programs of these social roles. A person identifies himself with previous bearers of a given name and performs those functions and responsibilities that are transferred to him with the name.

Professional-nominal rules include a person in social activities according to the professional component, which he masters by imitating the activities of his elders: teacher, student, military leader, servant, etc.

The universal conceptual type ensures entry into life and social activity according to the universal “civil” component. Based on the universal-conceptual type, a person “disobjectifies” himself, realizes, and gives vent to his personal qualities. Here he can speak on behalf of any profession or any personal name.

The process of transmitting scientific knowledge uses communication technologies - monologue, dialogue, polylogue. Communication involves the circulation of semantic, emotional, verbal and other types of information.

G.P. Shchedrovitsky identified three types of communication strategies: presentation, manipulation, convention. The presentation contains a message about the significance of a particular object, process, event; manipulation involves the transfer of an external goal to a selected subject and uses hidden mechanisms of influence; The convention is characterized by agreements in social relations, when subjects are partners, assistants, called moderators of communication. From the point of view of the interpenetration of interests, communication can manifest itself as confrontation, compromise, cooperation, withdrawal, neutrality. Depending on the organizational forms, communication can be business, deliberative, or presentational.

In communication there is no initial tendency towards consensus; it is filled with emissions of energy of varying degrees of intensity and modality and at the same time is open to the emergence of new meanings and new content. In general, communication relies on rationality and understanding, but exceeds their permissive scope. It contains moments of intuitive, improvisational, emotionally spontaneous response, as well as volitional, managerial, role and institutional influences. In modern communication, imitation mechanisms are quite strong, when a person tends to imitate all vital states, a large place belongs to paralinguistic (intonation, facial expressions, gestures), as well as extralinguistic forms (pauses, laughter, crying). Communication is important not only from the point of view of the main evolutionary goal - adaptation and transfer of knowledge, but also for the realization of life values that are significant for the individual.

Science as a social institute– sphere of people activities, the purpose of which is the study of objects and processes of nature, society and thinking, their properties, relationships and patterns, as well as one of the forms of social science. consciousness.

The very concept of “social institution” began to come into use thanks to the research of Western sociologists. R. Merton is considered the founder of the institutional approach in science. In Russian philosophy of science, the institutional approach has not been developed for a long time. Institutionalism presupposes the formalization of all types of relations, the transition from unorganized activities and informal relations such as agreements and negotiations to the creation of organized structures involving hierarchy, power regulation and regulations.

In Western Europe, science as a social institution arose in the 17th century in connection with the need to serve the emerging capitalist production and began to claim a certain autonomy. In the system of social division of labor, science as a social institution has assigned itself specific functions: to bear responsibility for the production, examination and implementation of scientific and theoretical knowledge. As a social institution, science included not only a system of knowledge and scientific activity, but also a system of relations in science, scientific institutions and organizations.

Science as a social institution at all its levels (both the collective and the scientific community on a global scale) presupposes the existence of norms and values that are mandatory for people of science (plagiarists are expelled).

Speaking about modern science in its interactions with various spheres of human life and society, we can distinguish three groups of social functions performed by it: 1) cultural and ideological functions, 2) functions of science as a direct productive force and 3) its functions as a social force associated with the fact that scientific knowledge and methods are increasingly used in solving a wide variety of problems arising in the course of social development.

Science as a social institution has its own ramified structure and uses both cognitive, organizational and moral resources. The development of institutional forms of scientific activity involved clarifying the prerequisites for the process of institutionalization, revealing its content, and analyzing the results of institutionalization. As a social institution, science includes the following components:

The body of knowledge and its carriers;

The presence of specific cognitive goals and objectives;

Perform certain functions;

Availability of specific means of knowledge and institutions;

Development of forms of control, examination and evaluation of scientific achievements;

The existence of certain sanctions.

E. Durkheim especially emphasized the coercive nature of the institutional in relation to an individual subject, its external force, T. Parsons pointed to another important feature of the institution - a stable complex of roles distributed within it. Institutions are called upon to rationally streamline the life activities of the individuals who make up society and ensure the sustainable flow of communication processes between various social structures. M. Weber emphasized that an institution is a form of association of individuals, a way of inclusion in collective activity, participation in social action.

Features of the development of science at the present stage:

1) Wide dissemination of ideas and methods of synergetics - the theory of self-organization and development of systems of any nature;

2) Strengthening the paradigm of integrity, i.e. awareness of the need for a global, comprehensive view of the world;

3) Strengthening and increasingly widespread application of the idea (principle) of coevolution, i.e. conjugate, interdependent;

4) The introduction of time into all sciences, the increasingly widespread dissemination of the idea of development;

5) Changing the nature of the object of research and strengthening the role of interdisciplinary integrated approaches in its study;

6) Connecting the objective world and the human world, overcoming the gap between object and subject;

7) An even wider application of philosophy and its methods in all sciences;

8) The increasing mathematization of scientific theories and the increasing level of their abstraction and complexity;

9) Methodological pluralism, awareness of the limitations, one-sidedness of any methodology - including rationalistic (including dialectical-materialistic).

The functioning of the scientific community, the effective regulation of relationships between its members, as well as between science, society and the state, is carried out using a specific system of internal values inherent in a given social structure of the scientific and technical policy of society and the state, as well as the corresponding system of legislative norms (patent law, economic law, civil law, etc.). The set of internal values of the scientific community that have the status of moral norms is called “scientific ethos.” One explanation for the norms of scientific ethos was proposed in the 1930s. XX century founder of the sociological study of science Robert Merton. He believed that science as a special social structure relies in its functioning on four value imperatives: universalism, collectivism, selflessness and organized skepticism. Later, B. Barber added two more imperatives: rationalism and emotional neutrality.

The imperative of universalism affirms the impersonal, objective nature of scientific knowledge. The reliability of new scientific knowledge is determined only by its consistency with observations and previously certified scientific knowledge. Universalism determines the international and democratic nature of science. The imperative of collectivism suggests that the fruits of scientific knowledge belong to the entire scientific community and society as a whole. They are always the result of collective scientific co-creation, since any scientist always relies on some ideas (knowledge) of his predecessors and contemporaries. Private property rights to knowledge in science should not exist, although scientists who make the most significant personal contribution have the right to demand fair material and moral incentives and adequate professional recognition from colleagues and society. Such recognition is the most important incentive for scientific activity.

The Imperative of Selflessness means that the main goal of scientists should be to serve the Truth. The latter in science should never be a means to achieve personal benefits, but only a socially significant goal.

The Imperative of Organized Skepticism implies not only a ban on the dogmatic assertion of truth in science, but, on the contrary, makes it a professional duty for a scientist to criticize the views of his colleagues, if there is the slightest reason for doing so. Accordingly, it is necessary to treat criticism addressed to you, namely, how necessary condition development of science. A true scientist is a skeptic by nature and vocation. Skepticism and doubt are as necessary, important and subtle tools for a scientist as a scalpel and a needle in the hands of a surgeon. The value of rationalism states that science strives not simply for objective truth, but for proven, logically organized discourse, the supreme arbiter of truth of which is scientific reason.

The Imperative of Emotional Neutrality prohibits people of science from using emotions, personal likes, dislikes, etc., resources of the sensory sphere of consciousness when solving scientific problems.

It is necessary to immediately emphasize that the outlined approach to the scientific ethos is purely theoretical, and not empirical, because here science is described as a certain theoretical object, constructed from the point of view of its proper (“ideal”) existence, and not from the position of existence. Merton himself understood this very well, as well as the fact that it is impossible to distinguish science as a social structure from other social phenomena (politics, economics, religion, etc.) in any other way (outside the value dimension). Already Merton's closest students and followers, having conducted extensive sociological studies of the behavior of members of the scientific community, became convinced that it is essentially ambivalent, that in their daily professional activities scientists are constantly in a state of choice between polar behavioral imperatives. Thus, a scientist must:

transmit your results to the scientific community as quickly as possible, but are not obliged to rush into publications, being wary of their “immaturity” or unfair use;

Be receptive to new ideas, but not succumb to intellectual “fashion”;

Strive to obtain knowledge that will be highly appreciated by colleagues, but at the same time work without paying attention to the assessments of others;

Defend new ideas, but do not support rash conclusions;

Make every effort to know the work related to his field, but at the same time understand that erudition sometimes inhibits creativity;

Be extremely careful in formulations and details, but not be a pedant, because this comes at the expense of the content;

Always remember that knowledge is international, but do not forget that every scientific discovery does honor to the national science whose representative it was made;

To educate a new generation of scientists, but not to devote too much attention and time to teaching; learn from a great master and imitate him, but not be like him.

It is clear that the choice in favor of one or another imperative is always situational, contextual and determined by a significant number of cognitive, social and even psychological factors that are “integrated” by specific individuals.

One of the most important discoveries in the study of science as a social institution was the realization that science does not represent some kind of single, monolithic system, but rather a granular competitive environment consisting of many small and medium-sized scientific communities, whose interests are often not only do they not coincide, but sometimes they contradict each other. Modern science is a complex network of teams, organizations and institutions interacting with each other - from laboratories and departments to state institutes and academies, from “invisible colleges” to large organizations with all the attributes legal entity, from scientific incubators and science parks to research and investment corporations, from disciplinary communities to national scientific communities and international associations. All of them are connected by myriads of communication connections both among themselves and with other powerful subsystems of society and the state (economy, education, politics, culture, etc.)

Scientific revolution- a radical change in the process and content of scientific knowledge, associated with the transition to new theoretical and methodological premises, to a new system of fundamental concepts and methods, to a new scientific picture of the world, as well as with qualitative transformations of material means of observation and experimentation, with new ways of assessment and interpretation empirical data, with new ideals of explanation, validity and organization of knowledge.

Historical examples of the scientific revolution can be the transition from medieval ideas about the Cosmos to a mechanistic picture of the world based on mathematical physics of the 16th-18th centuries, the transition to the evolutionary theory of the origin and development of biological species, the emergence of an electrodynamic picture of the world (19th century), the creation of quantum relativistic physics in beginning 20th century and etc.

Scientific revolutions vary in depth and breadth structural elements science, according to the type of changes in its conceptual, methodological and cultural foundations. The structure of the foundations of science includes: ideals and norms of research (evidence and validity of knowledge, norms of explanation and description, construction and organization of knowledge), the scientific picture of the world and the philosophical foundations of science. According to this structuring, the main types of scientific revolutions are distinguished: 1) restructuring of the picture of the world without a radical change in the ideals and norms of research and the philosophical foundations of science (for example, the introduction of atomism into ideas about chemical processes in the early 19th century, the transition of modern particle physics to synthetic quark models, etc.

Topic 10.

P.); 2) a change in the scientific picture of the world, accompanied by a partial or radical replacement of the ideals and norms of scientific research, as well as its philosophical foundations (for example, the emergence of quantum relativistic physics or a synergetic model of cosmic evolution). The scientific revolution is a complex step-by-step process that has wide range internal and external, i.e. sociocultural, historical, determination, interacting with each other. The “internal” factors of the scientific revolution include: the accumulation of anomalies, facts that cannot be explained within the conceptual and methodological framework of one or another scientific discipline; antinomies that arise when solving problems that require restructuring the conceptual foundations of the theory (for example, the paradox of infinite values that arises when explaining the absolutely “black body” model within the framework of the classical theory of radiation); improvement of research tools and methods (new instrumentation, new mathematical models, etc.), expanding the range of objects under study; the emergence of alternative theoretical systems that compete with each other in their ability to increase the “empirical content” of science, that is, the area of facts explained and predicted by it.

The “external” determination of the scientific revolution includes a philosophical rethinking of the scientific picture of the world, a revaluation of the leading cognitive values and ideals of knowledge and their place in culture, as well as the processes of changing scientific leaders, the interaction of science with other social institutions, changes in the relationships in the structures of social production, leading to merging scientific and technical processes, highlighting fundamentally new needs of people (economic, political, spiritual). Thus, the revolutionary nature of the ongoing changes in science can be judged on the basis of a complex “multidimensional” analysis, the object of which is science in the unity of its various dimensions: subject-logical, sociological, personal-psychological, institutional, etc. The principles of such analysis are determined by the conceptual the apparatus of epistemological theory, within the framework of which the basic ideas about scientific rationality and its historical development are formulated. Ideas about a scientific revolution vary depending on the choice of such apparatus.

For example, within the framework of neopositivist philosophy of science, the concept of scientific revolution appears only as a methodological metaphor, expressing the conditional division of the essentially cumulative growth of scientific knowledge into periods of dominance of certain inductive generalizations, acting as “laws of nature.” The transition to “laws” is more high level and the change of previous generalizations is carried out according to the same methodological canons; knowledge certified by Experience retains its significance in any subsequent systematization, perhaps as a limiting case (for example, the laws of classical mechanics are considered as limiting cases of relativistic mechanics, etc.). The concept of scientific revolution plays the same “metaphorical role” in “critical rationalism” (K. Popper and others): revolutions in science occur constantly, each refutation of the accepted one and the promotion of a new “brave” one (i.e., even more susceptible to refutations). hypotheses can in principle be considered a scientific revolution. Therefore, the scientific revolution in the critical-rationalist interpretation is a fact of change in scientific (primarily fundamental) theories, viewed through the prism of its logical-methodological (rational) reconstruction, but not an event in the real history of science and culture. This is also the basis for I. Lakatos’ understanding of the scientific revolution. The historian can only “retrospectively,” by applying the scheme of rational reconstruction to past events, can decide whether this change was a transition to a more progressive program (increasing its empirical content thanks to the heuristic potential inherent in it) or a consequence of “irrational” decisions (e.g. erroneous assessment of the program by the scientific community). In science, various programs, methods, etc., constantly compete, which come to the fore for a while, but are then pushed aside by more successful competitors or are significantly reconstructed. The concept of a scientific revolution is also metaphorical in historically oriented concepts of science (T. Kuhn, S. Toulmin, etc.), but the meaning of the metaphor here is different: it means a leap across the gap between “incommensurable” paradigms

mi, performed as a “gestalt switch” in the consciousnesses of members of Scientific communities. In these concepts, the main attention is paid to the psychological and sociological aspects of conceptual changes; the possibility of a “rational reconstruction” of the scientific revolution is either denied or allowed through such an interpretation of scientific rationality, in which the latter is identified with the totality of successful decisions of the scientific elite.

Didn't find what you were looking for? Use Google search on the site:

Search Lectures

Science as a social institution

Introduction

Social philosophy and social science

To date, a significant complex of sciences has developed that are commonly called social. IN modern world the role and importance of the social sciences are generally recognized. Moreover, the development of social-scientific knowledge is a characteristic feature of our days. Its validity is not disputed. However, at one time, a genuine revolution in scientific thinking was required in order for knowledge about society to take place, and as knowledge that meets the requirements of scientific character. This revolution took place starting from the 13th century. and ended only in the twentieth century, when knowledge about society was finally established as scientifically legitimate.

Obviously, objectivity is just as necessary in the social sciences as in the natural sciences. However, it is also clear that in reality it is much more difficult to achieve. Equally important is the focus on intellectual honesty, which over the time of R. Descartes determines any research that claims to be scientific. Finally, in the social sciences, it is extremely important to choose the right method to avoid arbitrary or deliberately desired conclusions. Today, quite a lot of such methods have been accumulated in the arsenal of scientific social science.

At the same time, from the entire diversity of social life, science can purposefully highlight a certain aspect - economic, political, social, cultural, etc. In this case, a certain system of society and its component subsystems are identified. In its turn systems approach, as a rule, is complemented by structural and functional. The scientific approach to social reality is also served by the methods of social statistics, which make it possible to identify and record a certain regularity in the manifestations of social life in various spheres.

Taking into account the foregoing, we can conclude that the social sciences in the modern world are a huge variety of scientific disciplines that have accumulated a wealth of experience in the study of social processes.

The question arises: in what relation does social philosophy stand to the social sciences? The answer is not based on several factors. Firstly, social philosophy strives not only to survey social life as a whole, but also to discover the meaning of the existence of social institutions and society as such. Secondly, within the framework of social philosophy, one of the most important is the problem of the relationship between the individual and society, posed primarily in general terms, i.e. in a certain independence from specific types of social organization. Thirdly, social philosophy thinks about the ontological foundations of social life, i.e. explores the conditions under which society maintains its integrity and does not disintegrate into isolated parts or into a set of individuals not connected by any community. Fourthly, within the framework of social philosophy, the methodology of scientific knowledge of social life is comprehended and the experience of social sciences is generalized. According to these parameters, philosophical knowledge about society differs from scientific knowledge itself.

Science as a social institution

A social institution is a historical form of organization and regulation of social life. With the help of social institutions streamline relationships between people, their activities, their behavior in society, ensure the sustainability of social life, integrate the actions and relationships of individuals, achieve social cohesion. groups and layers. Social cultural institutions include science, art, etc.

Science as a social institute is the sphere of people. activities, the purpose of which is the study of objects and processes of nature, society and thinking, their properties, relationships and patterns; one of the forms of common consciousness.

Ordinary everyday experience does not belong to science - knowledge obtained on the basis of simple observation and practical activity, which does not go further than a simple description of facts and processes, identifying their purely external aspects.

Speaking about modern science in its interactions with various spheres of human life and society, we can distinguish three groups of social functions performed by it: 1) cultural and ideological functions, 2) functions of science as a direct productive force and 3) its functions as a social force associated with topics that scientific knowledge and methods are now increasingly used in solving a wide variety of problems arising in the course of social development.

An important aspect of the transformation of science into a productive force was the creation and streamlining of permanent channels for the practical use of scientific knowledge, the emergence of such branches of activity as applied research and development, the creation of networks of scientific and technical information, etc. Moreover, following industry, such channels arise in other sectors of the material production and even beyond. All this entails significant consequences for both science and practice. The functions of science as a social force in solving global problems of our time are important.

The growing role of science in public life has given rise to its special status in modern culture and new features of its interaction with various layers of public consciousness. in this regard, the problem of the characteristics of scientific knowledge and its relationship with other forms of cognitive activity becomes acute. This problem at the same time has great practical significance. Understanding the specifics of science is a necessary prerequisite for the introduction of scientific methods in the management of cultural processes. It is also necessary for constructing a theory of management of science itself in the context of the development of scientific and technological revolution, since elucidation of the laws of scientific knowledge requires an analysis of its social conditionality and its interaction with various phenomena of spiritual and material culture.

The relationship between science as a social institution and society is two-way: science receives support from society and, in turn, gives society what it needs for its progressive development.

Being a form of spiritual activity of people, science is aimed at producing knowledge about nature, society and knowledge itself; its immediate goal is to comprehend the truth and discover the objective laws of the human and natural world based on a generalization of real facts. The sociocultural features of scientific activity are:

- universality (universal significance and “general culture”),

— uniqueness (innovative structures created by scientific activity are inimitable, exceptional, irreproducible),

— non-cost productivity (it is impossible to assign value equivalents to the creative actions of the scientific community),

— personification (like any free spiritual production, scientific activity is always personal, and its methods are individual),

— discipline (scientific activity is regulated and disciplined as Scientific research),

— democracy (scientific activity is unthinkable without criticism and free thinking),

- communality (scientific creativity is co-creation, scientific knowledge crystallizes in various contexts of communication - partnership, dialogue, discussion, etc.).

Reflecting the world in its materiality and development, science forms a single, interconnected, developing system of knowledge about its laws. At the same time, science is divided into many branches of knowledge (special sciences), which differ from each other in what aspect of reality they study. By subject and methods of cognition, one can distinguish the sciences of nature (natural science - chemistry, physics, biology, etc.), the sciences of society (history, sociology, political science, etc.), and a separate group consists of technical sciences.

42. Science as a social institution

Depending on the specifics of the object being studied, it is customary to divide sciences into natural, social, humanitarian and technical. Natural sciences reflect nature, social and humanitarian sciences reflect human life, and technical sciences reflect the “artificial world” as a specific result of human influence on nature. It is possible to use other criteria for classifying science (for example, according to their “remoteness” from practical activities, sciences are divided into fundamental, where there is no direct orientation to practice, and applied, directly applying the results of scientific knowledge to solve production and socio-practical problems.) Together However, the boundaries between individual sciences and scientific disciplines are conditional and fluid.

2.1 Social Institute of Science as Scientific Production

This idea of the social institution of science is especially typical for Rostov philosophers. So, M.M. Karpov, M.K. Petrov, A.V. Potemkin proceed from the fact that “the clarification of the internal structure of science as a social institution, the isolation of those bricks from which the “temple of science” is composed, the study of the laws of communication and the existence of its structural elements are now becoming the topic of the day.” The most important aspects of scientific production are considered as “building blocks”, starting from a discussion of the problem of the origin of science and ending with the features of modern requirements for the system of training scientific personnel.

THEM. Oreshnikov is inclined to identify the concept of “social institution” with the concept of “scientific production”. In his opinion, “social science is a social institution, the purpose of which is to understand the laws and phenomena of social reality (production of socio-economic and political knowledge), disseminate this knowledge among members of society, fight bourgeois ideology and any of its manifestations, reproduce scientific and scientific and pedagogical personnel necessary for the development of science itself and for the needs of social life.” However, here we are essentially talking about the institutional study of scientific production, and not about the social institution of science. A very close position is occupied by A.V. Uzhogov, for whom a social institution is scientific production (“production of ideas”).

For all of the named researchers, the term “social institution” is not of a specialized nature, but, on the contrary, simultaneously replaces several categories of historical materialism and abstractions of the systemic method. This is the main disadvantage of using the term “social institution” as a synonym for scientific production.

2.2 Social Institute of Science as a system of institutions

This understanding of a social institution seems to be the most productive. In this meaning, this term is used by V.A. Konev. Thus, the concept of a social institution (through the concept of social management) is included in the system of categories of historical materialism. Apparently, V.Zh. comes to a similar conclusion. Kelle. Speaking about a “social institution”, “a system of organizing science”, he calls them institutions.

A social institution is functional one system institutions that organize one or another system of relations of social management, control and supervision. A social institute of science is a system of institutions that organizes and services the production and transmission of scientific knowledge, as well as the reproduction of scientific personnel and the exchange of activities between science and other sectors of social production. The social institute of science in this case is a social form of existence of management relations in scientific production.

In the process of producing scientific knowledge, its translation and diverse practical use, participants in scientific production enter into relationships of joint activity that require an organizing principle.

A scientific institution, like any other institution, is characterized primarily by the presence of permanent and paid staff (not to be confused with an association, group, team) with its inherent division of functions and service hierarchy, as well as a certain legal status. (A great expert in this matter, Ostap Bender, when creating his office “Horns and Hooves”, by the way, took into account, first of all, precisely these circumstances - by creating a staff and hanging a sign, he thereby organized the institution.)

As scientific activity professionalizes, the organizational forms of science acquire economic and ideological content and turn into an extensive system of institutions, which we call the social institution of science.

Education is a social subsystem that has its own structure. As its main elements, we can distinguish educational institutions as social organizations, social communities (teachers and students), and the educational process as a type of sociocultural activity.

Prerequisites for the development of science:

Speech formation;
Account development;
The emergence of art;
Formation of writing;
Formation of worldview (myth);
The emergence of philosophy.

The following periods of the emergence and development of science are usually distinguished:

Pre-science- the birth of science in civilizations Ancient East: astrology, literacy, numerology.
Ancient science- the formation of the first scientific theories (atomism) and the compilation of the first scientific treatises in the era of Antiquity: Ptolemy’s astronomy, Theophrastus’s botany, Euclid’s geometry, Aristotle’s physics, as well as the emergence of the first proto-scientific communities represented by the Academy.
Medieval magical science- the formation of experimental science using the example of alchemy by Jabir (famous Arab alchemist, doctor, pharmacist, mathematician and astronomer.)
Scientific revolution and classical science- the formation of science in the modern sense in the works of Galileo, Newton, Linnaeus.
Non-classical (post-classical) science- science of the era of crisis of classical rationality: Darwin's theory of evolution, Einstein's theory of relativity, Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, Big Bang theory, René Thom's catastrophe theory, Mandelbrot's fractal geometry.

History of education can be divided into stages.

Stage of the primitive communal stage of development. General organization of hunting and distribution of spoils, management of household needs and common system transfer of knowledge from generation to generation. Slave stage. With the emergence of a slave system, scientists say, there is a gap between physical labor and intellectual activity. The result of this is the emergence of nodes and centers for storing, processing and transferring knowledge—schools and philosophical communities—separated from society. Secular science does not include religious centers here, although it is well known that it was religion from the very beginning that appeared in every single known source of writing as the main theme of their content. Stage of the feudal system. The monopoly of intellectual education was given to the clergy, and education itself thereby assumed a predominantly theological character. Renaissance. The education system has finally “moved away from the Church,” which has led to the gradual loss of the ontological (Ontology is the doctrine of existence, of being, a branch of philosophy) meaning of education.

Age of Enlightenment. Here education continued its transformation, moving further and further away from religion and philosophy. It becomes more and more practically oriented, more and more changes its tasks from heavenly to earthly, it teaches a person to live more with his “head” - his mind, than with his “heart” - his conscience. The main goal of education is to “raise a free personality. In the same era, a man appeared in Russia who finally developed an integral didactic system - Konstantin Dmitrievich Ushinsky, who managed to bring together the demands of society and the deep need of the human soul for God.

Social functions of science:

· Worldview (this includes knowledge of the world).

· Managerial (knowing the laws of world development, we can manage our own activities to obtain certain results)

· Culturological (science is capable of shaping not only a person’s attitude to nature but, on the basis of new knowledge about man himself, relationships between people in society)

· The functions of science as a social force, associated with the fact that scientific knowledge and methods are now increasingly used in solving a variety of problems arising in the course of social development.

Social functions of education:

Education (development of cultural and moral values).

2. Training as a process of transferring knowledge, skills and abilities.

Are you really human?

Training of qualified specialists.

4. Introduction to cultural products and technologies.

5. Socialization (instilling patterns of behavior, social norms and values).

Features of the functioning of science at the present stage of development. One of the most important components of the culture of society is science. Science is the highest form of knowledge, obtaining objective and systematically organized and substantiated knowledge about nature, society and thinking. It brings to perfection such functions of culture as cognitive, practical and methodological.

Features of the functioning of education at the present stage of development. New approaches to reforming education that meet promising trends in global development are determined by the movement of sources and driving forces of socio-economic progress from the material to the intellectual sphere. Under the influence of this fundamental shift, the role and structure of education are changing: it becomes not a derivative, but a determining factor of economic growth; it no longer so much satisfies social needs as it forms future social opportunities.

Science as a social institution arose in Western Europe in the 16th-17th centuries. due to the need to serve the emerging capitalist production and claimed a certain autonomy. The very existence of science as a social institution indicated that in the system of social division of labor it must perform specific functions, namely, be responsible for the production of theoretical knowledge. Science as a social institution included not only a system of knowledge and scientific activity, but also a system of relations in science, scientific institutions and organizations.

The concept of “social institution” reflects the degree of consolidation of a particular type of human activity. Institutionalization presupposes the formalization of all types of relations and the transition from unorganized activities and informal relations such as agreements and negotiations to the creation of organized structures involving hierarchy, power regulation and regulations. In this regard, they talk about political, social, religious institutions, as well as the institution of family, school, and institution.

However, for a long time the institutional approach was not developed in Russian philosophy of science. The process of institutionalization of science testifies to its independence, the official recognition of the role of science in the system of social division of labor, and its claims to participate in the distribution of material and human resources.

Science as a social institution has its own ramified structure and uses both cognitive, organizational and moral resources. As such, it includes the following components:

body of knowledge and its carriers;
the presence of specific cognitive goals and objectives;
performing certain functions;
the presence of specific means of knowledge and institutions;
development of forms of control, examination and evaluation of scientific achievements;
the existence of certain sanctions.

The development of institutional forms of scientific activity presupposed the clarification of the prerequisites for the process of institutionalization, the disclosure of its content and results.

The institutionalization of science involves considering the process of its development from three sides:

1) the creation of various organizational forms of science, its internal differentiation and specialization, thanks to which it fulfills its functions in society;

2) formation of a system of values and norms regulating the activities of scientists, ensuring their integration and cooperation;

3) integration of science into the cultural and social systems of industrial society, which at the same time leaves the possibility of relative autonomy of science in relation to society and the state.

In antiquity, scientific knowledge was dissolved in the systems of natural philosophers, in the Middle Ages - in the practice of alchemists, and mixed with either religious or philosophical views. An important prerequisite for the development of science as a social institution is the systematic education of the younger generation.

The history of science itself is closely connected with the history of university education, which has the immediate task of not just transferring a system of knowledge, but also preparing people capable of intellectual work and professional scientific activity. The emergence of universities dates back to the 12th century, but the first universities were dominated by the religious paradigm of worldview. Secular influence does not penetrate universities until 400 years later.

Science as a social institution or a form of social consciousness associated with the production of scientific and theoretical knowledge is a certain system of relationships between scientific organizations, members of the scientific community, a system of norms and values. However, the fact that it is an institution in which tens and even hundreds of thousands of people have found their profession is the result of recent development. Only in the 20th century. the profession of a scientist becomes comparable in importance to the profession of a clergyman and lawyer.

According to sociologists, no more than 6-8% of the population is able to engage in science. Sometimes the main and empirically obvious feature of science is considered to be the combination of research activities and higher education. This is very reasonable in conditions when science is turning into a professional activity. Scientific research activity is recognized as a necessary and sustainable sociocultural tradition, without which the normal existence and development of society is impossible. Science is one of the priority areas of activity of any civilized state

Science as a social institution includes, first of all, scientists with their knowledge, qualifications and experience; division and cooperation of scientific work; a well-established and efficient system scientific information; scientific organizations and institutions, scientific schools and communities; experimental and laboratory equipment, etc.

In modern conditions, the process of optimal organization of management of science and its development is of paramount importance.

The leading figures of science are brilliant, talented, gifted, creatively thinking scientists and innovators. Outstanding researchers, obsessed with the pursuit of something new, are at the origins of revolutionary turns in the development of science. The interaction of the individual, personal and the universal, collective in science is a real, living contradiction in its development.

Science as a social institution (academy, scientific schools, scientific communities, universities)

The establishment of science as a special social institution was facilitated by a number of important organizational changes in its structure. Along with the integration of science into the social system, a certain autonomy of science from society also occurs. First of all, this process is implemented in university science, concentrating on the study of fundamental problems. The autonomy of the social institution of science, in contrast to other social institutions (economics, education, etc.), has a number of features.

It occurs under the dominance of a certain political system, namely, a democratic structure of society that guarantees freedom for any type of creative activity, including scientific research.

Distancing from society contributes to the formation of a special system of values and norms that regulate the activities of the scientific community - first of all, strict objectivity, separation of facts from values, and the establishment of special methods for determining the truth of knowledge.

A special language of science is being created, distinguished by the rigor of its definitions, logical clarity and consistency. In developed natural sciences, this language is so complex and specific that it is understandable only to initiates and specialists.

The social organization of science is characterized by the existence of a special system of social stratification, in which the prestige of a scientist and his social position in this community are assessed on the basis of special criteria. This type of social stratification differs significantly from the stratification of society as a whole, which also contributes to the identification of the social institution of science as an independent and independent institution.

The science(like the education system) is a central social institution in all modern societies. Increasingly, the very existence of modern society depends on advanced scientific knowledge. Not only the material conditions of society’s existence, but also the very idea of the world depend on the development of science. In this sense, the difference between science and technology is essential. If science can be defined as a system of logical methods through which knowledge about the world is acquired, then technology is the practical application of this knowledge.

The goals of science and technology are different. The goal is knowledge of nature, technology is the application of knowledge about nature in practice. Technology (even if primitive) is available in almost all societies. Scientific knowledge requires an understanding of the principles underlying natural phenomena. Such knowledge is necessary for the development of advanced technology. The connection between science and technology was formed relatively recently, but led to the emergence of a scientific and technological revolution, the development of the process of modernization, a process that is radically changing the modern world.

Institutionalization of science - a relatively recent phenomenon. Until the beginning of the 20th century, science existed mainly in the form of non-professional activities of representatives of the intellectual elite. Its rapid development in the 20th century led to the differentiation and specialization of scientific knowledge. The need to master special disciplines of a relatively narrow, specialized profile predetermined the emergence of institutes for long-term training of relevant specialists. The technological consequences of scientific discoveries have made it necessary to involve significant capital investments, both private and public, in the process of their development and successful industrial application (for example, the US government funds more than half of scientific research).

The need to coordinate specialized research led to the emergence of large research centers, and the need for effective exchange of ideas and information led to the emergence “invisible colleges” - informal communities of scientists working in the same or related fields. The presence of such an informal organization allows individual scientists to keep abreast of trends in the development of scientific thought, receive answers to specific questions, sense new trends, and evaluate critical comments on their work. Outstanding scientific discoveries have been made within the Invisible Colleges.

The emergence of a community of scientists, awareness of the growing role and purpose of science, the increasing social significance of social and ethical requirements for scientists predetermined the need to identify and formulate specific norms, adherence to which should become an important responsibility of scientists, principles and norms that form the moral imperative of science. A formulation of the principles of science was proposed by Merton in 1942. These included: universalism, communalism, disinterestedness and organized skepticism.

The principle of universalism means that science and its discoveries have a single, universal (universal) character. No personal characteristics of individual scientists - such as their race, class or nationality - have any significance in assessing the value of their work. Research results should be judged solely on their scientific merit.

According to the principle of communalism, no scientific knowledge can become the personal property of the researcher, but must be available to any member of the scientific community. Science is based on a common scientific heritage shared by everyone and no one scientist can be considered the owner of a scientific discovery he has made (unlike technology, achievements in the field of which are subject to protection through patent law).

The principle of disinterest means that the pursuit of personal interests does not meet the requirements of the professional role of a scientist. A scientist may, of course, have a legitimate interest in being recognized by scientists and in positive evaluation of his work. This kind of recognition should serve as a sufficient reward for the scientist, since his main goal should be the desire to increase scientific knowledge. This presupposes the inadmissibility of the slightest manipulation of data or their falsification.

In accordance with principle of organized skepticism The scientist must refrain from formulating conclusions until the relevant facts have been fully identified. No scientific theory, whether traditional or revolutionary, can be accepted uncritically. There can be no no-go zones in science that are not subject to critical analysis, even if political or religious dogma prevents this.

These kinds of principles and norms, naturally, are not formalized, and the content of these norms, their real existence derived from the reaction of the community of scientists to the actions of those who violate such norms. Such violations are not uncommon. Thus, the principle of universalism in science was violated in Nazi Germany, where they tried to distinguish between “Aryan” and “Jewish” science, as well as in our country, when in the late 1940s - early 1950s. a distinction was preached between “bourgeois”, “cosmopolitan” and “Marxist” domestic sciences, and genetics, cybernetics and sociology were classified as “bourgeois”. In both cases, the result was a long-term lag in the development of science. The principle of universalism is also violated in a situation where research is classified under the pretext of military or state secrets or hidden under the influence of commercial structures in order to maintain a monopoly on scientific discovery.

The result of successful scientific activity is an increase in scientific knowledge. At the same time, science as a social institution is influenced by social factors both from society as a whole and from the community of scientists. The scientific research process includes two points: "normal development" And "scientific revolutions". An important feature of scientific research is that it is never reduced to a simple accumulation of discoveries and inventions. Most often, in a community of scientists within a single scientific discipline, a certain system of concepts, methods and proposals about the subject of research is formed. T. Kuhn calls such a system of general views a “paradigm.” It is the paradigms that predetermine what the problem to be studied is, the nature of its solution, the essence of the discovery achieved and the features of the methods used. In this sense, scientific research is an attempt to “catch” the diversity of nature into the conceptual network of a current paradigm. In fact, textbooks are mainly devoted to the presentation of existing paradigms in science.

But if paradigms are a necessary prerequisite for research and scientific discovery, allowing for the coordination of research and rapid growth of knowledge, then scientific revolutions are no less necessary, the essence of which is to replace outdated paradigms with paradigms that open up new horizons in the development of scientific knowledge. “Disruptive elements,” the accumulation of which leads to scientific revolutions, are constantly emerging individual phenomena that do not fit into the current paradigm. They are classified as deviations, exceptions, they are used to clarify the existing paradigm, but over time, the increasing inadequacy of such a paradigm becomes the cause of a crisis situation, and efforts to find a new paradigm increase, with the establishment of which a revolution within the framework of this science begins.

Science is not a simple accumulation of knowledge. Theories arise, are used and discarded. Existing, available knowledge is never final or irrefutable. Nothing in science can be proven in an absolutely definitive form, for any There are always exceptions to scientific law. The only possibility remains the possibility of refuting hypotheses, and scientific knowledge consists precisely of hypotheses that have not yet been refuted, which can be refuted in the future. This is the difference between science and dogma.

Technological imperative. A significant share of scientific knowledge in modern industrialized countries is used to create highly developed technologies. The influence of technology on society is so great that it gives rise to the promotion of technological dynamism as the leading force of social development as a whole (technological determinism). Indeed, energy production technology imposes clear restrictions on the way of life of a given society. Using only muscular power limits life to the narrow confines of small, isolated groups. The use of animal power expands this framework, makes it possible to develop agriculture and produce a surplus product, which leads to social stratification and the emergence of new social roles of an unproductive nature.

The advent of machines using natural springs energy (wind, water, electricity, nuclear energy), significantly expanded the field of social opportunities. Social prospects and the internal structure of modern industrial society are immeasurably more complex, broader and more diverse than ever in the past, which has allowed the emergence of multimillion-dollar mass societies. The rapid development of computer technology and unprecedented possibilities for transmitting and receiving information on a global scale foreshadow and are already leading to serious social consequences. The decisive role of information quality in increasing the efficiency of both scientific, industrial and social development. The one who leads in development software, improving computer equipment, computerizing science and production - he is a leader today in scientific and industrial progress.

However, the specific consequences of technological development directly depend on the nature of the culture within which this development occurs. Different cultures accept, reject or ignore technological discoveries in accordance with prevailing values, norms, expectations, aspirations. The theory of technological determinism should not be absolutized. Technological development must be considered and assessed in inextricable connection with the entire system of social institutions of society - political, economic, religious, military, family, etc. At the same time, technology is important factor social changes. Most technological innovations are directly dependent on the growth of scientific knowledge. Accordingly, technological innovations are intensifying, which, in turn, leads to accelerated social development.

Accelerated scientific and technological development raises one of the most serious questions: what could be the results of such development in terms of their social consequences - for nature, the environment and the future of humanity as a whole. Thermonuclear weapons and genetic engineering are just some examples of scientific achievements that pose a potential threat to humanity. And only at the global level can such problems be solved. In essence, we are talking about the growing need to create an international system of social control, orienting world science in the direction of creative development for the benefit of all humanity.

The central problem of the current stage of development of science in Russia is the transformation of the status of science from an object of directive planned state management and control, existing within the framework of state supply and support, into an economically and socially independent, active social institution. In the field of natural sciences, discoveries of defense significance were introduced by order, ensuring a privileged position for the corresponding scientific institutions that served the military-industrial complex. Industrial enterprises outside this complex, in the conditions of the planned economy, had no real interest in modernizing production or introducing new, scientifically based technologies.

In market conditions, the primary incentive for industrial development (and ensuring it is scientific developments) becomes the request of consumers (where one of them is the state). Large business units, production associations, companies whose success in competition (the fight for consumers) will ultimately depend on success in the development of high technology; The very logic of such a struggle makes them dependent on success in the development and implementation of new technologies. Only such structures with sufficient capital are able to make long-term investments in the study of fundamental problems of science, which leads to reaching a new level of technological and industrial development. In such a situation, science as a social institution acquires independent significance, acquires the role of an influential, equal partner in a network of socio-economic interactions, and scientific institutions receive a real impetus for intensive scientific work - the key to success in a competitive environment.

In a market economy, the role of the state should be expressed in providing state orders on a competitive basis to enterprises that have modern technology, based on the latest scientific achievements. This should give a dynamic impetus to such enterprises in providing economic support to scientific institutions (institutes, laboratories) that are able to supply production with technologies that ensure the production of competitive products.

Outside the direct action of market laws, they remain predominantly humanities sciences, the development of which is inseparable from the nature and characteristics of the socio-cultural environment within which society itself and its social institutions are formed. It is on the development of such sciences that the public worldview and ideals largely depend. Great events in this area often foreshadow and lead to decisive social changes (Enlightenment philosophy). Natural sciences discover the laws of nature, while the sciences of the humanitarian cycle strive to understand the meaning of human existence, the nature of social development, largely determine public self-awareness, and contribute to self-identification of the people - awareness of one’s place in history and in modern civilization.

The influence of the state on the development of humanitarian knowledge is internally contradictory. Enlightened government can promote such sciences (and arts), but the problem is that the state itself (like society as a whole) is an important (if not the most important) object of critical scientific analysis social science disciplines. Truly humanitarian knowledge as an element of social consciousness cannot directly depend solely on the market or the state. Society itself, acquiring the features of a civil society, must develop humanitarian knowledge, uniting the intellectual efforts of its bearers and providing their support. Currently, the sciences of the humanities in Russia are overcoming the consequences of ideological control and international isolation in order to introduce the best achievements of Russian and foreign thought into the arsenal of modern science.

Social strata, classes, and groups of people participate in the development of society. Technological progress originates in research teams. But one fact is undeniable: the ideas that move society, the great discoveries and inventions that transform production, are born only in individual consciousness; It is in it that everything great is born, of which humanity is proud, and which is embodied in its progress. But creative intelligence is the property of a free person. Free economically and politically, gaining human dignity in conditions of peace and democracy, the guarantor of which is the rule of law. Now Russia is only at the beginning of such a path.